Liquid Fuel Supply (Minimum Biobased Petrol Content) Amendment Bill 2022

Strongly advocated for the bill, citing multiple benefits of biofuels including reduced tailpipe emissions, regional jobs, fuel security, and support for agricultural industries. Criticised both major parties for failing to genuinely support biofuels despite passing previous mandates that were never enforced.

“If we are talking about reducing our footprint, why would we not put E10 in the tank which can be delivered cheaper than standard fuel? By mandating it we can reduce the emissions from petrol-driven vehicles by 28 per cent across Queensland overnight, with no cost to the taxpayer.”— 2023-10-10View Hansard

As the bill's sponsor, moved the second reading and argued the bill would strengthen Queensland's biofuels industry by doubling penalties for noncompliance with the ethanol mandate and ensuring E10 fuel contains at least nine per cent ethanol.

“We want to ensure that when Queenslanders are going to the bowser to back the biofuels industry by choosing E10 for whatever reason—whether it is because they want to back and support farmers who grow the sugar cane or the grain to produce ethanol here in Queensland or they choose to use E10 or ethanol or bio-based fuels because they care for the environment.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard

Acknowledged opportunities in biofuels including sustainable aviation fuel but did not express support for the bill. Highlighted government's alternative approaches including an options paper on biofuels, implicitly supporting the government's position against the bill.

“In May we released an options paper, which has now closed. The paper asked everyone for input about biofuels, sustainable fuels and how we get there.”— 2023-10-10View Hansard

As Minister for Energy, announced the government would oppose the bill, arguing the proposed penalties are impractical and the bill attempts to solve a problem not borne out by evidence, while noting the government is developing its own sustainable liquid fuels strategy.

“Put simply, this is not a question of support for this industry or otherwise, but it is the government's view that the proposals in the private member's bill—the proposed penalties, the fines for noncompliance measures—are impractical.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard

As bill sponsor, defended the legislation in reply, emphasising it simply mirrors New South Wales law requiring E10 to contain at least 9% ethanol. Refuted claims the bill would hurt small retailers, noting they are exempt under the provisions. Argued the bill would restore consumer confidence and send a positive signal to biofuels investors.

“We are just trying to give consumers the confidence about what they are buying from the bowser. We are trying to get some alignment with what happens across the border in terms of when a fuel wholesaler in New South Wales comes across the border to Queensland.”— 2023-10-10View Hansard

Commended the bill and argued the ethanol mandate has failed to deliver since 2017 because of lack of enforcement, noting Brazil has achieved a 27 per cent ethanol mandate while Queensland struggles to meet four per cent.

“This bill is good for the average Queenslander, good for business and good for the environment. I commend the member for Hinchinbrook and I challenge every MP to support this bill in this House.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard

As committee chair, explained the committee recommended against the bill because it is unworkable, unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional, and argued consumer demand rather than penalties drives E10 uptake.

“While I am not opposed to some of the sentiment underpinning this bill such as good outcomes for consumers and better outcomes for the environment, it was clear to the committee that this bill was unlikely to achieve all of those goals.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard

As shadow minister, announced the LNP would not support the bill due to concerns about practicality, unintended consequences for small service station operators, inconsistencies with border communities, and the bill becoming outdated given advancements in biofuels for aviation.

“From the outset, I would like to say that this bill has sound intent. However, the LNP has concerns surrounding the practicality of the legislation and unintended consequences.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard

Argued the bill proposes more regulation and red tape for a problem that does not exist according to compliance data, and that the future lies in electric vehicles and biofuels for aviation rather than E10 mandates.

“All the Katter party is proposing is a bigger stick on private fuel station owners who do not provide E10. In fact, the bill seeks to double penalties up to a maximum of $2.875 million.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard

As committee deputy chair, acknowledged the bill's good intentions but argued it needs more work, expressing concerns about placing regulatory burden on retailers rather than wholesalers and the reversal of onus of proof provisions.

“I can say that the bill is clearly founded on the best of intentions, namely, to further strengthen the use of E10 fuels in Queensland. However, in my considered opinion, I cannot support the bill because it needs more work.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard

Argued the bill takes a hammer to consumers and small retailers, noting the doubled penalties are excessive and the minimum content provisions would be unconstitutional as inconsistent with Commonwealth fuel standards laws.

“Ultimately, the proposals in the bill really take a hammer to consumers and a hammer to small and medium retailers. In my opinion, neither of the proposals is likely to have the desired effect, which, as stated by the KAP, is to try to increase E10 sales.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard

Expressed concerns about supply-side controls and fines to drive consumer adoption, potential impacts on grain supply for feedlots in the Darling Downs region, and compliance costs for smaller regional retailers.

“Fundamentally I am not a fan of supply side controls and fines to try to drive up consumer adoption of a particular product.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard

Argued the existing mandate has been successful in increasing E10 availability and uptake, and that doubling penalties would result in less choice for motorists and increased use of more expensive premium petrol as occurred in New South Wales.

“Simply doubling maximum penalties will not achieve the effect that the mechanism is designed to. It is just going to result in less choice for motorists and increased use of more expensive petrol.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard

Thanked KAP for highlighting the government's lack of enforcement of the existing mandate but argued the bill is outdated, would add red tape and increase fuel prices, while expressing support for the biofuels industry generally.

“We certainly here at the LNP support a biofuel industry in Queensland. If the mandate is met, then it is absolutely a good thing for Queensland. Biofuels are a good thing for Queensland because the agricultural industry is a good thing for Queensland.”— 2023-08-22View Hansard